All Activity

I’m having trouble understanding how the trim system has been implemented for the sim. Flying above 60kts its flies like a dream. However, when hovering, I feel like I’m fighting the heading hold the entire time, unless I constantly click the trim release switch. Even holding the trim release switch doesn’t seem to disengage heading hold as it does in the real aircraft. So, is there a way to disengage the trim for just the pedals, the way the micro switches do in the real bird? I would like to bind the brake axis of my pedals to pedal trim release, so anytime my feet are touching the pedals, trim is released. Then when I pull my feet off the pedals (release brakes) it re-engages trim/heading hold. Is that possible, or am I asking too much? Really all I want is to be able to figure out why the aircraft fights me so much while doing a pedal turn during a hover.

Head position is recorded to some degree. If you save a track and replay it on flat screen, you'll see the view move around to follow your head movements, at least until you change views. So tracks are not irrelevant.

I mean, there is nothing particularly complex about making a blocking signal thats measured in khz in the 1970's. Like I could build one using 70's era components today for like 10 bucks. So that argument doesn't really sound realistic. Its a simple crystal oscillator and divider circuit. Maybe they have a circuit from something that isn't a mig29 tho. Since the SPO-15 was modular for many good reasons. The blanking circuits would certainly be modular depending on what platform it was installed on. If you are using a mig23 blanker on a mig29 I'm sure that doesn't work. But its pretty far from "rokit/elektronik" science to make a blanker circuit work at the desired PRF, be it LPRF/MPRF/HPRF from an electronics standpoint. There might some additional caveats synching it which might explain the various "abberant" behaviors tho. Also to address the "1 cable" thing that was brought up, thats like a non issue. Its a coax cable sending a timed signal, like ever other radio cable on earth, nothing "primitive or advanced about it"

W-3WA Sokół

I've decided to write this post since I didnt see anyone who reported this issue get enough attention, so I'll try myself As you may know, we - content creators are constantly working with DCS replay system. Anyone who worked with them knows how annoying can they be. Seems that with recent updates almost all replays have some sort of problems in them. Most commonly it is with how AI behaves while playing live and how it behaves on replay. It very often happens that AI enemy planes manouver differently which makes targeting them on radar impossible, since it recoded my input aiming the TDC cursor at somewhere the bandit is not anymore (despite it was there live), or similiar thing with vertical scan or HMD targeting - In F-16 if you are not in cockpit and moving your head to aim at the bandit the fox-2 wont get a lock, so how are you supposed to record it "from the outside"? The other problem with that is often times you not being able to shoot at nothing - because AI went the other way on replay - means the AI continues to do its thing, shoots you, and then you fly the plane wreck till the end of mission. The same happens with missile targeting, your radar can hold lock in live gameplay but can drop lock on replay - meaning fox1 that hit the bandit, wont hit on replay. Same with fox-2 and fox-3 missiles, they often dont hit their target on replay or even go for a different one. Why are their tracking and flypath being recalculated again on replay? Recently theres this bug where your plane will vibrate violently during flight - especially on fc3 planes and mods, happens by itself, when using autopilot or damper, or when the plane gets damaged - even seen on Wags fulcrum videos (which he claims is not a replay bug but rather something to do with the fulcrum, we all know its not, looks exactly the same as the replay bug thats been there for years). MiG-29A Fulcrum often does not retract the front landing gear, you probably know about this. I understand that replay feature is mainly for debugging but like c'mon, it works exactly like 10 years ago, records inputs as unreliable as 10 years ago, and almost nobody uses it for debugging but for screenshots and videos. Why cant it record position and state of every object on the map so there is no problems like mentioned above? We dont mind the replay being hundreds of megabytes in size - IL-2 Sturmovik already does that and noone is complaining since the replays do their job there. Especially when you can disable track recording which I'm sure you can In dcs. Some of the replays are straight up innaccessible. You either get "mission load fail" message, or when you load a mulitplayer replay theres no replay, rather just server mission started locally on your pc. It doesnt matter if you use mods or not, although modded dcs tends to have this issue more often which I kinda understand. As a person who was uploading dcs videos almost daily, I know how much pain in the a$$ it is to work with them, often having to replay and record the same mission over and over again until replay works fine. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one having problems with that, because Its been like that for years. Please do something with that, especially given the fact that without Youtubers and other content creators DCS wouldnt be as popular as it is, so at least give us, creators, a proper working tool. Have a nice evening

This problem was first noticed by another player who posted the attached video with the file name starting with "7b21a". I, ColdClaws, and another player named Zipper 1-1 have replicated this. In the attached track files and tacview the R-27R fails to start tracking at all in many engagements despite a solid radar lock. In what may be a separate bug, the R-27R appears to track but fails to explode in a near miss despite being within NEZ (no escape zone). This seems to only happen when the target makes a sudden turn right before the missile would impact. There are hits in these tracks but in a significant amount of the engagements the missiles miss when they should have hit or proxy fused. In the tacview, the R-27Rs don't match the position that they were in the track file while the Aim-7M's position was identical within the tacview and track files. Also, no chaff or notching was used during these tests, only cranking, which is why I have included a screenshot from the tacview to show that I was never in a notching position. The two track files are from the same mission. One is from my perspective and the other is from the other pilot's, Zipper 1-1, perspective. The trackfile named "1v1 miz3" was from the player Zipper 1-1, who was primarily in the Su-27 firing R-27Rs at me. The track file named server-20250923 was from me, ColdClaws, primarily defending in the F-15C. The track files are about ten minutes long but only these two planes are in the mission with no scripts or mods, just testing the R-27R. 7b21a7c828ec2b11962463fb47e79d4a.mp4 1v1 miz3-20250923-201636.trk server-20250923-201621.trk Tacview-20250923-201626-DCS-Host-1v1 miz3.zip.acmi

Must have been bad timing when I clicked on it. So Preschen was the only base with German Fulcrums? Sucks that we don't have that airbase on the Germany map.

Bye Phant

Is it possible to add AI to the DCS core?

No problem you’re all good

When starting the 29 i usually don't use ground power but instead turn on my apu like in the mi 24. I've seen other people just using battery power to start up the whole plane. Does the apu have any effect on how the plane actually starts up?

No, you’re fine.

When starting the 29 i usually don't use ground power but instead turn on my apu like in the mi 24. I've seen other people just using battery power to start up the whole plane. Does the apu have any effect on how the plane actually starts up?

Ok, we figured it out, well Wags figured it out first. There is some issues in release that are already fixed on internal builds that he used for his video. I am hopeful that these fixes will make it into the next hotfix/patch. I will test the latest Release Candidate tonight and see. Thanks for your patience on this.

Not to take away from your point about Northern plains being a more likely alternative then Fulda but the entire plan of 7 days to River Rhine is very fanciful. It seems very improbable to expect to reach the Rhine in a mere 7 days even with the use of nuclear strikes against Nato forces stationed in Germany ( with the added caveat it was in response to a 1st strike by Nato) , let alone to push past West German Border and reach Paris in another 7 days. Somehow i find it difficult to believe that a Soviet Spearhead through western Germany would outdo the pace of Hitlers blitzkrieg into France. IT comes off as a "bridge too far" type of scenario if played out. Plus it also depends what year a cold war gone hot scenario is entertained. The further you push into the 1980s the less favorable things look for the USSR having hope in besting Nato. The further into the decade USSR has to contend with US forces gradually becoming technologically superior along with quality of US army being brought back into a 1st rate fighting force (" army of excellence" program correcting the post Vietnam woes). The USSR has having more issues of its own with its declining economy and the questionability of warsaw pact ally readiness not to mention the politics shifting towards Detente in 1985 with Gorbachov at the helm thus further reducing the probability of any hot war scenario. But had the soviets treated central Germany as a sideshow and focused on cutting off sea ports wouldn't this mean that REFORGER units and supplies could still be airlifted to airbases like Ramstein? I read that Reforger units had thier vehicle in storage pre positioned in various places because it would take too long to ship entire Mechanized and Tank brigades from stateside. So the plan was to airlift the crews into Germany and then once in country they would be sent to POMCUS facilities to retrieve their vehicles then move out to reinforce the frontlines. OF course the simple answer is you cant maintain enough pressure Northern Germany and Fulda just Nuke the airfields so this doesn't happen, but then that would force escalatory response from Nato.

Да, я это читал. Думал ошибка. Ибо…смысл в таком профиле атаки если ты без спец.БЧ…

Cracking job . Cheers for the news too, as always, lookin bleedin marvellous. Keep plugging away and she’ll be Flyable someday/night, it’s worth the wait .

Can LAZ-695 livery be changed in dcs? There are other liveries in game files, but in mission editor there is only "deafult" paint scheme. I am also trying to make custom livery in saved games folder, but to no avail.

Remember, on 2025 and beyond, was a "teaser" of the Dynamic Campaign

I did immediately after the AFCS check. All three neutral trim lamps were lit. However when I do so, I always need significant left trim until that lamp illuminates. Additionally, trim setting should not affect deadzone/curve application, should it? Tim neutral just before takeoff on the above track:

The claim being made by the dev is that the synchronization circuit itself can't handle HPRF or CW signals.

I understand the need to initially develop the DC on one map and later port it to other maps. Some things that need to be included: The ability to advance the clock as necessary. AI units need to do their job and not get shot down or crash on every mission. Needs to be multiplayer only in initial release. There are a lot of content creators who make awesome single player scripted campaigns ATM. There needs to be a detailed debrief upon return from a mission, and the campaign status should be accessible on demand. A working ATC would be nice to compliment the campaign. Just some initial thoughts

Our statement on this from Discord:

Maybe Altocumulus Lenticularis or Mammatus?

ty for the feedback I fixed it